This post is mainly in response to Kirk's post in the "Christian Games vs. Clean Games" thread. I also think this is a good place to discuss an issue I see in some modern Christians, I'd be interested on other thoughts:

- Demeaning others based on station (or some sort of conceptualized insight that people think others don't have):

I wish this were a thing of the past and even more so wish it was not expressed by Christians. Unfortunately I have seen this quite a lot. People who feel they are better equiped to handle spiritual issues and evaluation based on one of two things (or both):

- "successful" jobs (typically meaning they have a lot of power, money, or both)
- technically advanced jobs (such as programmers thinking they are better equiped to evaluate a logical situation than a non-programmer)

These always have struck me as amazingly non Jesus like and always boggles me how Christians can reflect this attitude on a consistent basis. One of the toughests parts of this issue is reflecting this attitude towards someone who displays it... I'd be interested in ways others may suggest to express to people who show this attitude in an effective way. I have never been successful at doing so.

Now in response to Kirk's post (very much along the same topic):

quote:

---

To beat the dead horse once more...

Mat's claim that it is logical for a documentation engineer to know programming is not necessarily true. I worked for a contractor to a government agency who hired another contractor having documentation people who were not programmers at all, more like secretaries. Comparing the two situations, I think it's based on the customers -- the government wanted documentors to interface between secretary level users and programmers but your employer needs documenation to interface between programmer level users and programmers, making it necessary to have a higher level of documentors. Thus before encountering Mat's arguments I assumed all full-time documentors were secretary types.

---

quote:

---

To beat the dead horse once more...

---

You may see it as a dead horse; however, I see it as a reflection of your character and attitude towards others that I currently see reflected in other comments off of that same context. On top of that you asked how your comments were different from sam's. So why ask, get an answer, and then claim the person is beating a dead horse?

quote:

---

Mat's claim that it is logical for a documentation engineer to know programming is not necessarily true. I worked for a contractor to a government agency who hired another contractor having documentation people who were not programmers at all, more like secretaries. Comparing the two situations, I think it's based on the customers -- the government wanted documentors to interface between secretary level users and programmers but your employer needs documenation to interface between programmer level users and programmers, making it necessary to have a higher level of documentors. Thus before encountering Mat's arguments I assumed all full-time documentors were secretary types.

---

Very good point... though two points:

1) I think you make a very good point, "Comparing the two situations, I think it's based on the customers". Though my sig line in which you extrapolated me being a "documentation engineer" from is this:

"Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames"

Note the final "GarageGames"... which is also a link. Now based on what you are saying I'm assuming you implied that in game engine dev (the field I'm in) documentation engineer might need to be a programmer while in other industries they might now. Now even if you didn't click the link... "GarageGames" would imply some sort of game development or related indsutry and if you clicked the link you would quickly know we're a game tech company (as well as a game developer and publisher). So though you make a great point it still doesn't seem to be a logical reason why you might not consider I'm a programmer... To me the it's quite obvious you made a very rash assumption not based on much logical evaluation. Furthermore it shows that you would jump to making claims of superior logic against me before spending any extra time finding whether or not your claims are based on fact or falsehoods. I don't mean this offensively, simply how you came accross to me and I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion. I say this in hopes that you may see why your comments are different than others. Yours seem to be targeted at demeaning the other to empower yourself.

2) Even if I were not a programmer (which I very much am) why would that mean you would have superior logic than me? So someones profession defines who they are? Jesus was a carpenter, does that mean he isn't capable of logic as well? If someone is in fact a "secretary type" how does that make them lesser than you since you claim to be a programmer. To me this reminds me of how the Pharisees would use their station to demean others and claim superiority.

My wife is a secretary type. Though she also has a Bachelor's degree, is a very skilled artist, can script fairly well, is a great writer, is very faithful, has solid logic, is extremely creative, and is great at problem solving.

So I would never dismiss her opinions in logic or anything else due to me trying to pride myself... and if I do then I am failing her and the Lord.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

I can appreciate any taking of a position isn't obedient to Jesus in Matthew 23:8-10. However, your original claim that your question was worthy of my response is also taking a position. It is for me to decide if I wish to respond and if I consider a post mostly nonsense I may not.

An example of your nonsense in the above post is your claim that I could have figured out that you might have been a programmer had I clicked on your employer's link. I had no reason to do so. I had no previous idea that there were jobs specifically for non-secretary documenters and I had no idea that clicking on the link might lead to such a clue. I had no exposure to your company other than as a sponsor of the CGDC which was mostly limited to seeing the Gargage Games logo without a list of products. Seeing a logo is insufficient motivation for me to click.

Regarding your wife, in my opinion you should properly leave her out as a topic of discussion. At least I will unless she participates. The point of discussing this is you were originally wrong, not your wife.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

Proverbs 8:13 - The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.

Proverbs 14:16 - A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless.

Proverbs 15:32 - The LORD will tear down the house of the proud, But He will establish the boundary of the widow.

James 4:6 - God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

------------------
Sam Washburn

Check out my CCN SpeedGame 2 Blog

For a Christian, the point is NOT our ideas at all, however good they might seem to be. The point is GOD. Nothing else matters, especially when you consider that God used farmers and shepherds to preach to those who thought themselves more logical or knowledgeable than the others around them. Remember, He uses the foolish to confound the "wise".

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirk:
...I could have figured out that you might have been a programmer had I clicked on your employer's link. I had no reason to do so. I had no previous idea that there were jobs specifically for non-secretary documenters and I had no idea that clicking on the link might lead to such a clue.

---

Hypothetically, imagine us arguing about the qualities of various soups. I might say to you: "You are a chowder-head. I can prove it, since you're from the east coast, and east-coastians like clam chowder. Chowder head!"

You say, "I'm certainly not from the east coast! Whatever gave you that idea?"

I say, "Your picture shows you standing by the Statue of Liberty. I know the Statue of Liberty is on the East Coast, so therefore I know that you're from the east coast."

You say, "Well I'm certainly not from the east coast -- that picture was taken near a scale model of the Statue while we were at Legoland in California, and it only looks like the real one because it's such a low-res picture. Had you even done a modest amount of looking into your wrong assumptions (such as by clicking on my blog link), you would have seen I was obviously from the west coast."

I might say, "I had no reason to do such research. I still think you like clam chowder, and therefore I was perfectly justified in assuming you were from the east coast like most other chowder-heads I know. Chowder head!"

Making false assumptions based on thin evidence only serves to weaken your argument, and is a cardinal sin of logicians.

That is a large part of the point of this thread. Not whether or not Matt likes clam chowder -- we're addressing the way in which you went about creating "logical" arguments.

In this regard, Matt was only bringing up his wife to use as an illustration, much as I have brought clam chowder in as an analogy. My analogy obviously doesn't correlate 1-to-1 for the situation we have here, but perhaps it helps a bit.

I hope this serves to shed some light on the issue.

In Christ,
clint

[This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 29, 2007).]

My mother said, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything."

I appreciate your referring me to the free download of VB.Net. That plus some advice on improving my game rules by a couple of players is what I appreciate about having attended CGDC.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

[This message has been edited by Kirk (edited August 29, 2007).]

quote:

---

Matt, you missed the point. The intention in alluding to superior logic is to give you a basis for admitting your error.

---

See the problem with this is that in my opinion I made no error. So using falsehoods to support what you beleive as a truth is justified? Is that what your saying now?

quote:

---

If you don't like people claiming they have superior ideas to yours, then what would convince you that you are wrong?

---

For one superior is a subjective not objective term. Superior itself is a very prideful term. By saying that you are trying to position yourself above others to make yourself feel better. By doing this you lower others and attempt to make them inferior. This is a very immature act. Unfortunately for you I don't succumb to your attempts to make me feel inferior. You simply give off the impression of a child trying to act like a bully. Trying to always sound smarter then they really are *shrug*. I don't need to justify my ideas by making others feel inferior.

If you actually showed something to me that would show me that I was wrong would convince me that I was wrong. Just because you think I'm wrong doesn't mean I am. Did you ever consider the possiblity that you were wrong, or that we both were.

quote:

---

An example of your nonsense in the above post is your claim that I could have figured out that you might have been a programmer had I clicked on your employer's link. I had no reason to do so. I had no previous idea that there were jobs specifically for non-secretary documenters and I had no idea that clicking on the link might lead to such a clue. I had no exposure to your company other than as a sponsor of the CGDC which was mostly limited to seeing the Gargage Games logo without a list of products. Seeing a logo is insufficient motivation for me to click.

---

Very good point... if you have such insufficient knowledge considering the matter of me not being a programmer given the information you had then why did you make the assumption. Why make uneducated assumptions, all that shows is you don't backup your statements with research.

Clint said it well. You simply refuse to admit you were wrong, though you state you in fact were wrong avoiding any fault being yours.

If you had no reason to find out if I wasn't a programmer then you had no reason to state it. If you instead put some time into looking into it... or maybe asked me (not that hard), and then came to the conclusion I wasn't that would be one thing. Though if you show no effort into your conclusions how can I value your statements.

quote:

---

Regarding your wife, in my opinion you should properly leave her out as a topic of discussion. At least I will unless she participates. The point of discussing this is you were originally wrong, not your wife.

---

Actually the point of discussing this is you were wrong. You said I wasn't a programmer, I am in fact a programmer. You were wrong, plain and simple, quite obviously. Is it that hard for you to simply admit you were wrong? Do you disagree you were wrong... am I am in fact not a programmer like you claimed, but yet I am? What are you trying to say?

As Clint said my wife is an example... you claim you have superior logic to a secretary type, yet from what you've said I find that to be false.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

quote:

---

The Rev. 12 woman is the end-time church and her manchild is the Rev. 2-3 overcomers who are the raptured part of the end-time church. Proofs include the two attributes of the manchild are rewards to the overcomers, the rod of iron in Rev. 2:26-27 and sitting with Jesus on His throne in Rev. 3:21. Also, the woman after delivering the manchild is left behind in Rev. 12:6 for the 3.5 year tribulation. Since by the typology of Esther and her son Darius who rebuilt Jerusalem, the manchild's main job after the tribulation is to build the New Jerusalem which is the only thing which makes it from this heaven and earth to the new heaven and earth in Rev. 21, that makes the manchild the very most important project of all in the whole world to work on at this time.

---

Matthew is so immature he cannot even discuss the above. He made comments saying I can be wrong therefore I am wrong, without any evidence that I am actually wrong.

Matthew attends an inferior church which allows him to get away with such inferior documentation. I know this since I recently attended the best denomination in Eugene I recommended to Matthew and Matthew wasn't there.

I was wrong in using an argument that assumed Matthew was a secretary type in position. It is clear I was never wrong in evaluating him as a secretary type in written documentation skills.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

yeah your own doctrine shows how little you know about true Christianity man---I don't know (and don't want to) all the details behind the fight--although your conduct VS Matt's quickly shows that he is the mature one in the situation while you seem to be seeking one-up-man-ship.

------------------

quote:

---

Matthew attends an inferior church which allows him to get away with such inferior documentation. I know this since I recently attended the best denomination in Eugene

---

I'm not going to get much into this, but, if you don't mind me saying, shouldn't this be done via PMs? Anyway, that quote above either tells me that you're acting what you were "accused" of. Or something else is going on. (I don't feel its my place to say what.)

Ever wonder if anyone always goes to the same church, maybe he was attending the "inferior" denomination to enlighten them of his "superior" doctrine. Or maybe his "superior" doctrine told him that he didn't need to attend church because after all, his denomination is without sin. Besides, how would you know what the "best" denomination in Eugene is without attending all the "inferior" ones.

Anyway, the point is, if you're trying to be funny by acting, it won't help. If you're trying to be serious, I'd suggest changing your views real quick. I don't know Matt that well, but I've seen from the content of his posts, that he does not act superior in any way that i've seen.

------------------
MM out-
Thought travels much faster than sound, it is better to think something twice, and say it once, than to think something once, and have to say it twice.
"Frogs and Fauns! The tournament!" - Professor Winneynoodle/HanClinto
I reserve the full right to change my views/theories at any time.

------------------
"I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world!"
-C. S. Lewis

Proverbs 17:19 - He who loves a quarrel loves sin;

Proverbs 18:2 - A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

------------------
Sam Washburn

Check out my CCN SpeedGame 2 Blog

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Langley:
I'd be interested in ways others may suggest to express to people who show this attitude in an effective way. I have never been successful at doing so.

---

Prayer and conviction as far as I know.

You need to see things from the other person's perepective. Kirk's intentions are probably good. He wants us all to do more praying, study the bible, etc. These, in themselves, are certainly not bad. But his presentation is horrible, agressive, offensive, and "holier than thou".

Some of what he says is similar to prosperity Gospel where we get better jobs based on our faith. I really don't know how to explain his sense of certain jobs/positions as meaning someone is smarter or more logical. That just plain doesn't make sense, but apparently he believes this to be true.

Here are some pieces of advice:

1) Ask God to let you see the other person through His (God's) eyes.
2) Learn to be confident in who you are. In who Christ has made you to be. For example, if you do in fact code, then so be it. You've stated it once. You know you code, others know you code, so be confident in knowing you are a coder no matter what anyone else may say. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
3) Take to heart what you can from the other person. Maybe there is a bit of something said which can be used in our own life.
4) Recognize we all have different backgrounds, different life issues, different baggage so we all see the world in slightly different ways. Through this we also communicate in different ways as well. Learn to understand how others communicate so you can understand where the other person is coming from.
5) Pray for God to change your own heart in the situation.
6) Don't use 'you said this' or 'you said that'. This can just fuel the fire and you may find what you 'hear' is completely different from what the person intended. Instead, ask things like, "Did you mean....", "It sounds like you are saying....." Then you have a basis of what was said or meant.

I have found by looking inward, the situation usually works out. Or, at least my perspective on the situation is changed. It is not our job to change the other person, only the Holy Spirit can do that.

------------------
Sam Washburn

Check out my CCN SpeedGame 2 Blog

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirk:
Matthew attends an inferior church which allows him to get away with such inferior documentation. I know this since I recently attended the best denomination in Eugene I recommended to Matthew and Matthew wasn't there.

---

Excuse me? Did you forget to sprinkle in a few dozen smiley faces?

Dear Lord - I pray that you are mightily present in everyone's heart, that we humbly bow to you because in comparison to YOU none of us should have any ego! What mountains did we form or Stones did we write? Father, without you we are nothing - please discipline out of us any attributes you don't want us to have. Infuse us with your love to the point it overflows to non-believers and believers and points them all to you, not to us and what little we know. Give us the strength and wisdom to strive for the unity amongst believers that you have called us to. You are awesome, Oh Lord, and yet we saw humility through your son Jesus. Help us to be humble ... always.

In Jesus' name,
Amen

------------------
Called by God. The passioned plea of a father. The journey awaits at Jarod's Journey.
Participate in the Parables, The Interactive Parables

GWI 1up | GWI MySpace

Thank you very much for your insights. I found them to be both very wise and encouraging. I in fact posted against re-focusing the discussion on that very idea (what others think are effective ways of communicating with people like this) though the web ate my post =0 I was very happy to see that you addressed it even without me focusing back on that.

I'm going to respond to each of them because I believe they deserve that. Also based on a couple of them I realize I've probably given a very wrong impression of my thoughts on certain things.

Part of my job is to communicate with a community. So I honestly do feel I have very good communication skills, with most people. We have also had some very upset people in our communities before that let out their aggression in a very non-rational way. Often times it's hard to rationlize with someone who isn't being rational (if not impossible). In multiple instances I've talked people down from those situations. Though my biggest weakness is people who place themselves superior to others (whether it be superior to me or someone else).

That sort of attitude simply disgusts me deep inside. It is beyond revolting to me and it is where I lose perspective on communication effectively. In this case yours and others insights are invaluable.

Usually I'm very good at placing myself in others perspectives and responding to them in that context. Though I've found that not only is this very hard with someone who literally thinks of themselves superior to others, but I lose my patience much more in this case. In identifying this as my weakest area of communication (with these rare people), I'm hoping to strengthen that. Typically on the GG forums I don't run into these people. It's usually in some sort of religion, philisophical, or theology conversation that these people arise. In that case I also don't get much

quote:

---

1) Ask God to let you see the other person through His (God's) eyes.

---

I think this is hugely important. Also one of the easiest to forget/bypass when dealing with someone difficult, especially if that person is deliberately trying to get you angered and is baiting you. In those situations it's easy to just consider their perspective

quote:

---

2) Learn to be confident in who you are. In who Christ has made you to be. For example, if you do in fact code, then so be it. You've stated it once. You know you code, others know you code, so be confident in knowing you are a coder no matter what anyone else may say. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

---

Unfortunately I think I gave the wrong impression by focusing so much on that specific instance between Kirk and I. I am completely confident in myself, I have pride in my God given talents and my growth empowered by God. I am humble in my personal limits and letting God expand upon those to complete my abilities. I've grown beyond having to prove myself to others and really do not care whether or not Kirk considers me a programmer. I am in fact very proud of the documentation skills the Lord has given me and inspired me to develop. It gives me an added dynamic and something I enjoy quite a bit. I simply used it since it was the clearest case in which Kirk made a completely incorrect assumption. I was hoping that if we could both agree that this was an incorrect assumption that lead to and invalid evaluation maybe he would re-consider some of his other assumptions about us here at CCN. Unfortunately that plan didn't work, partially due to me losing my patience, again people who are that demeaning really are my biggest challenge in communicating.

Just felt that I should make a note about this. I didn't focus on Kirk's comment about assuming I'm not a programmer because I'm determined to ensure everyone sees me as one... but because it simply was the clearest case I felt I could present to him.

quote:

---

3) Take to heart what you can from the other person. Maybe there is a bit of something said which can be used in our own life.

---

I think this is another great point to remember. I know I typically start at this stage, then the more difficult the person is to communicate with, the less I do this. I also find it very hard when someone sends a mixed message. Sometimes they can make some very good points that I find valid and then make some points that I completely disagree with. I often try to respond to a point that I think is good stating that this is a valid and very good point, though I disagree in these ways. Usually this really encourages good communication, though yet again I've found it is useless in this case.

quote:

---

4) Recognize we all have different backgrounds, different life issues, different baggage so we all see the world in slightly different ways. Through this we also communicate in different ways as well. Learn to understand how others communicate so you can understand where the other person is coming from.

---

I think this is huge. Working with a lot of different people has demanded me to communicate in different ways with different people. I also think this usually signifies one of the most important skills of a good manager. Again talking to these specific type of people I often lose the foresight to attempt this more. Definitely something I need to keep in mind, especially in these situations. It's definitely a worthy challenge to a persons resolve when the way someone communicates is through demeaning and insulting often.

quote:

---

5) Pray for God to change your own heart in the situation.

---

Definitely good advice, much appreciated.

quote:

---

6) Don't use 'you said this' or 'you said that'. This can just fuel the fire and you may find what you 'hear' is completely different from what the person intended. Instead, ask things like, "Did you mean....", "It sounds like you are saying....." Then you have a basis of what was said or meant.

---

Definitely a good point. Often when I deal with disgruntled people they are very much debate style people. So they respond very well to me addressing most of their comments individually. When entering relgion and theology however, this gets a bit shady. Especially with someone who may not be expressing themelves well.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

I agree with you that it can be extremely difficult to communicate with certain types of people. I have learned to have my say and walk away. Hey that rhymes and I wasn't even trying.

But seriously, I have found, in general, there is no changing certain people's opinions. They stand firm and don't see fault in anything they say or even the possibility of an itsy-bitsyness of false thinking.

As much as I would like to help, often times I can't. I figure the world will eventually tell this person the same thing I am. They can either recognize everyone is saying the same thing and make a change or believe everyone else is wrong.

Hey. I've been dealing with this for years with one of my children. Stubborn, strong-headed, never wrong and fights it to the end. It's tough and draining. But often she will come around and realize how she was wrong and apologize without any prompting from us.

Posting obsolete material without study of the new reflects poorly on the poster, providing nothing helpful or supportive to the thread, which can generate an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore it would be better for people who don't have time to say nothing confrontational until they have taken the time to evaluate the new material.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

------------------
Never Forget to Pray!

"...prayer itself is an art which only the Holy Ghost can teach us. He is the giver of all prayer. Pray for prayer---pray till you can pray; pray to be helped to pray, and give not up praying because you cannot pray, for it is when you think you cannot pray that you are most praying. Sometimes when you have no sort of comfort in your supplications, it is then that your heart---all broken and cast down---is really wrestling and truly prevailing with the Most High."
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from the pamphlet, "Effective Prayer"

As the World Trade Center is now gone even more will be all the works of man from the pyramids to the great wall. How can people be persuaded to pursue that which is truly of lasting importance? The following SHOULD obsolete the war on terror and lots more.

The most important project in the world

The Rev. 12 woman is the end-time church and her manchild is the Rev. 2-3 overcomers who are the raptured part of the end-time church. Proofs include the two attributes of the manchild are rewards to the overcomers, the rod of iron in Rev. 2:26-27 and sitting with Jesus on His throne in Rev. 3:21. Also, the woman after delivering the manchild is left behind in Rev. 12:6 for the 3. 5 year tribulation. Since by the typology of Esther and her son Darius who rebuilt Jerusalem, the manchild's main job after the tribulation is to build the New Jerusalem which is the only thing which makes it from this heaven and earth to the new heaven and earth in Rev. 21, that makes the manchild the very most important project of all in the whole world to work on at this time.

Interpreting Revelation 12:

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Obsolete: The "woman clothed in the sun" with "a crown of twelve stars on her head" may represent Israel with the sun being God and the crown with 12 stars representing the 12 patriarchs of Israel.

Correct: The woman is the end time church. The sun which is also a star must be Jesus Christ who is God but also a man. What is crowned with the patriarchs and clothed with Jesus? The church can but Israel rejects Jesus so it can't.

2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Obsolete: Israel gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus, through the line of David.

Correct: The end time church is a multiple entity which must give birth to another multiple entity thus it can be the body of overcomers, full grown Christians.

3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Obsolete: The red dragon represents Satan.

Correct: Satan is indeed represented as the dragon but there is more to it in chapter 13 which describes an end-time beast with many heads -- likely heads of nations that persecute Christians.

4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Obsolete: A third of the angels were seduced by Satan to rebel against God.

Correct: As the Satan following angels are cast to earth, they actively mislead Christians from developing the overcomers and hinder the manchild's birth. A step is inducing believers to misunderstand these verses.

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Obsolete: This represents the birth of Jesus Christ, the male child that was taken up to God and to his throne.

Correct: This specific part of the end time church must have the rod of iron and be qualified to ascend to God's throne. The part of the body of Christ to receive those attributes is the overcomers in Rev. 2-3. The specifics are Rev. 2:26-27 for the rod of iron and Rev. 3:21 for sitting with Jesus on His throne.

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Obsolete: Here Israel flees for 1260 days (half of the tribulation, or 3.5 years).

Correct: The end-time church after taking the manchild or overcoming believers is the church of the left behind which flees to the wilderness for the 3.5 year duration of the great tribulation during which the manchild will no longer be on earth interceding to prevent many evil events.

------------------------------------------

There are many implications on important changes to make in the practices of Christianity. Rev. 2-3 overcomers must be developed as the main purpose of church, not repeating the initial saving gospel for repeat attendees. The overcomers must be viewed as a next stage of spiritual growth beyond disciples who graduate as apostles, literally those sent by God. They must overcome all the false religion and sinful practices taught in seven categories of Christian church relationships with God by contacting Jesus directly in prayer to overcome the sins and get the rewards.

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser

That's the ego of liberal Democracy by which the majority remains in mediocrity. Being correct requires loving the comforter, the Spirit of Truth which Jesus gave us first before anyone's opinion, new or old. The reason we have a Republic instead of a Democracy in the USA is our founding fathers realized the selfishness of Democracies and provided a way for people expressing the Spirit of Truth to rise to power. Today however, it seems the illiterate rabble who are unaware of God's absolute perfection can be found in the seats of government and even in many churches. I would hope people here who profess Christianity and the intelligence to write software would apply some of that intellect to acquaint themselves with actual truth, preferably spiritually but at least in the Boolean sense.

Theory T and theory F can be discussed in the same sentence but that will never make theory F become theory T. Even if a person with world view F believes theory F is actually theory T, that belief can continue until it is challenged by person T with theory T. At that moment it is not in the interests of logic to automatically sweep the anomalies of theory T under the rug by declaring theory T one of the candidates for T in equal status with all the F's and F primes. Instead it must be evaluated. And if nobody but person with world view T has the time to do the homework to study T, perhaps it would be a little more honest to liberally declare theory T is actually T on the basis of person T's homework with respect to God's absolute truth than to relegate it to a position of equality with theory F. At least that might sooner motivate an actual evaluation.

Perhaps the failure of Christian coders to evaluate theory T is because their initial motivation to become coders is often laziness, wanting computers to automate their lives and think for them instead of stepping up to the challenge themselves. This could explain why Christian councilors will respect and resort to hours of psychological reasonings to defend side issues instead of actually stepping up to spiritual evaluation of theory T which could be accomplished in less time.

Now one might ask, if all you coders are found to disrespect truth by reason of laziness, could that be an indicator of a probability of being left behind in Rev. 12:6 as opposed to being selected for rapture in v. 5?

------------------
Love Jesus,
Kirk W. Fraser